JUDGMENT Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J. 1. The genesis of factual matrix lies in spectre of love between the petitioners, who solemnized their marriage on 02.02.2013 at Gurdwara Guru Nanak Niwas Sahib, Village Karor Kalan, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali according to their own sweet will. Photographs of the marriage are annexed as Annexure P/3. The marriage of the petitioners became an eyesore to the father, grandfather and uncles of petitioner No. 1, i.e., respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the present petition, because of virtuosity of the clan, caste, status and social norms which have been treated as more sacrosanct than the love of their daughter in this ephemeral life. The audacity of love is clashing with primordial loyalty of kinship. The petitioners tried to persuade the private respondents but failed. Ultimately, the petitioners' love culminated into marital relationship at the above said temple. Now, the private respondents are hell bent upon separating the petitioners from each other by resorting to the illegal means. Thus, the petitioners apprehend imminent danger to their life and liberty. On 05.02.2013, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners in person, this Court passed the following order: Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners seek protection of their life and liberty at the hands of respondents No. 4 to 7. Petitioner No. 2, present in Court, to show his bona fide, states that he will deposit a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs in the form of FDRs for a period of three years in favour of petitioner No. 1 within a period of fifteen days from today, to show his bona fide. Notice of motion to the Advocate General, Punjab and other respondents, for 12.03.2013. In the meanwhile, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach respondent No. 2 - Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran for protection, as per instructions dated 18.8.2010 issued by the Home Department, Punjab. Petitioners may not be arrested and adequate security be provided to them, if required. To prove his bona fides, petitioner No. 2 undertook to deposit Rs.5 lakhs as aforesaid. On the adjourned date, i.e., 18.03.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner No. 1 was not in a position to deposit the amount. In this manner, petitioner No. 2 violated his undertaking made at the time of passing the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2013. To prove his bona fides, petitioner No. 2 undertook to deposit Rs.5 lakhs as aforesaid. On the adjourned date, i.e., 18.03.2013, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner No. 1 was not in a position to deposit the amount. In this manner, petitioner No. 2 violated his undertaking made at the time of passing the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2013. This statement of petitioner No. 2 creates doubt in the mind of the Court, especially because petitioner No. 1 may be put in trouble by petitioner No. 2 whose intention does not appear to be bona fide as he has violated the aforesaid interim order. This Court is to be reminded of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishal Jeer v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 318 , which read as under:-- Many unfortunate teen-aged female children (hereinafter referred to as 'the children') and girls in full bloom are being sold in various parts of the country, for paltry sum even by their parents finding themselves unable to maintain their children on account of acute poverty and unbearable miseries and hoping that their children would be engaged only in household duties or manual labour. But those who are acting as pimps or brokers in the 'flesh trade' and brothel keepers who hunt for these teenaged children and young girls to make money either purchase or kidnap them by deceitful means and unjustly and forcibly inveigle them into 'flesh trade'. Once these unfortunate victims are taken to the dens of prostitutes and sold to brothel keepers, they are shockingly and brutally treated and confined in complete seclusion in a tiny claustrophobic room for several days without food until they succumb to the vicious desires of the brothel keepers and enter into the unethical and squalid business of prostitution. These victims though unwilling to lead this obnoxious way of life have no other way except to surrender themselves retreating into silence and submitting their bodies to all the dirty customers including even sexagenarians with plastic smile. 2. On being asked, petitioner No. 2 replied that he loves petitioner No. 1 and the protection should be granted in spite of the fact that he has no source of income and cannot deposit the amount in question. 2. On being asked, petitioner No. 2 replied that he loves petitioner No. 1 and the protection should be granted in spite of the fact that he has no source of income and cannot deposit the amount in question. In the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishal Jeet's case (supra) and lack of bona fide intention of petitioner No. 2, it is a case where petitioner No. 1 has been enticed into performing the alleged marriage. Even the parents of petitioner No. 2 are not visible in the photographs (Annexure P/3). Proactive approach of petitioner No. 2 for hasty marriage also confounded the doubt further. The financial support for the wife as per the customary practice of the society is a necessity. 3. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that we are living in a society where some people wear mask and are good at hiding things. Matrimonial life needs- transparency, when someone can be trusted, otherwise it may lead to complete vulnerability. It is common that trust is destroyed in relationships in a while. The masked man specifically targets vulnerable girls in full bloom who have difficult background or are emotionally fragile. Such girls are enticed and made to believe that they will have wonderful married life and they are special to the masked man. It has become an epidemic. The unfortunate teenaged female children and girls in full bloom are being sold in various parts of the country and put to unbearable miseries. They are shockingly and brutally treated and confined in complete seclusion. They unwillingly surrender themselves to obnoxious way of life. This Court has come across with the cases where some of the girls who had initially solemnized run away marriages and thereafter returned to their parents having been robbed of the chastity. When they enter into love marriage, they imagine to have attained heavenly bliss with their relationship. They believe that nothing adverse will come between them. They dream the married life as embroidered with golden offers given to each other. When these innocent girls are caught in a web of lies and intrigues of the masked man, the truth of life dawns on them. They believe that nothing adverse will come between them. They dream the married life as embroidered with golden offers given to each other. When these innocent girls are caught in a web of lies and intrigues of the masked man, the truth of life dawns on them. Then the innocent girl discovers the most dangerous enemy which continues to live inside her then she realises that the most loyal and love-heart has betrayed her, and when such a shocking news from the love-heart is received, it is very dreadful. The parents believe that it is not the nature of their daughter to run away without a trace of warning. In fact, they believe that she has been stolen away into depth of something that they never knew nothing about. Can procurers and panders be allowed to lure innocent young girls in full bloom and put their lives in peril? This is the question which this court is to confronted with. Another question is, how to combat the hideous monster, the masked man to protect the safety and purity of womanhood. 4. No doubt the run away marriages and inter-caste weddings are manifestations of general change in Indian society and cannot be looked down upon, and law enforcing agencies should protect such genuine couples from harassment. Love marriage is difficult and troublesome in large swathes of India as patriarch, kinship, casteism and family hold sway. A female is always under guardianship; as a child under her parents, and as a married woman under her husband. A breach of this guardianship control and dependence, howsoever small, is considered a rebellion. Modernity and tradition always remain in conflict. The run away marriage has been a part and parcel of the culture of Indian society since ages. Such marriages have been glorified in the folk-lores also. When such couples come, specially with a teenaged girl, this court is required to find out whether this is a genuine marriage, and the girl in question, who happens to run away with the sweet heart, is not likely to be put into trouble, as such marriages are performed ignoring the consent and knowledge of the parents, there are divergent views regarding the legality and validity of such type of marriages also. 5. 5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court when faced with similar problem has observed in 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Cri) 172 : CRMM 10215 of 2012 titled Kirti Goyal and another v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 09.04.2012, as under: xxxx In view of the constitutional mandate and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gopalan, Maneka Gandhi, Kartar Singh and Lata Singh (supra) followed by this Court in many cases including Pardeep Kumar Singh's case (supra), the petitioners are entitled to seek the protection to their life and liberty. It is also equally important to note that freedom of the individual is not absolute but subject to the established and time tested social norms of a civilised society. Co-existence of freedom of the individual and social control is sine-qua-non for the sustainable progress of the society and this is also the integral part of our constitutional philosophy. Therefore, though the petitioners are entitled for protection to their life and liberty in the given facts and circumstances of the present case but at the same time, it is also expected from them and other young citizens like them that before running away from their homes for performing this type of 'rebellion marriage', they must think twice, besides, listening carefully to their respective parents who are not their enemies but real well wisher. Let us welcome the dynamic social change and evolution but only subject to the social control and moral values which are centuries old and have not lost their shine even today. 6. In the facts of this case, when petitioner No. 2 undertook to deposit Rs.5 lacs in the form of FDR for three years in the name of petitioner No. 1 such an act on his part would not only have established his bona fides but also his financial stability as getting marriage is a commitment beyond just sharing popcorns, watching movies and going out for dinner date. But he failed. The marriage should bring with it hope for financial stability, as only emotions are not sufficient for sustaining it. The adolescents often see it as an adventure or key to freedom, but ultimately the girl in question turn out to be the sufferer in case the marriage is to fail, as it often does for lack of financial support. The marriage should bring with it hope for financial stability, as only emotions are not sufficient for sustaining it. The adolescents often see it as an adventure or key to freedom, but ultimately the girl in question turn out to be the sufferer in case the marriage is to fail, as it often does for lack of financial support. Being deeply loved by someone may give strength to the other, while loving someone deeply, gives courage, but when the same is broken, it may lead to madness/mental disorder, may be the ultimate destroyer of life. The dark guilt does not take long to bubble up; in the reins of romance, then the girl becomes more scared and loses faith in relation for times to come. 7. For that reason, this Court having realised that petitioner No. 1 might not be put in a trouble, feels that Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, be directed to inquire into the character and antecedents of petitioner No. 2, and thereafter take appropriate action in accordance with law and submit his report to this court within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. 8. It is clarified that this order shall not mean that the petitioners had reached the age of marriage, as required by the law applicable to them, at the time of their marriage or that their marriage is legal as per the relevant provisions of law. This is not the issue involved in the present petition, nor this Court is putting its seal of approval on the validity of marriage of the petitioners. It is the domain of the matrimonial Court of competent jurisdiction to decide about the validity of the marriage. It is also made clear that this order shall not entitle the petitioners for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if they are found involved in the commission of any cognizable offence. In case the petitioners have committed any offence, the law will take its own course. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is disposed of.